RazorbackPirate
Well-Known Member
Yeah, let's make GBG not worth playing. That'll fix it.
-
We are looking for you! Always wanted to join our Supporting Team? We are looking for enthusiastic moderators!
Take a look at our recruitement page for more information and how you can apply:
When can we stop pretending GBG is balanced?
- Thread starter Helmet Bro
- Start date
Algona
Well-Known Member
GBG is a classic example of the Peter Principle.
Your small Guild is new with new players and yet because you do well in GBG you wind up against Guilds full of good players who have played for years.
Be careful what you ask for, you might get it.
The idea of matchingGuilds based on 'strength' has been talked about for over a year.* No one has come up with objective criteria to effectively do so because two of the five factors that determine Guild GBG performance can only be measured by past GBG performance.
Let me expand on that. You can objectively measure individual player capability, Guild Treasury, number of players in a Guild. There is no way to tell how much players participate in GBG and the quality of Guild Leadership in GBG until the Guild does a lot of GBG.
Which means anything you can come up with that solely objectively measures Guild 'strength' would never put a smaller Guild with low ranked players in Diamond and possibly not even Platinum.
Do you want your Guild and others that have demonstrated they can compete in higher Leagues stuck in Gold until you recruit a lot more players and become a lot more advanced players?
*For the first GBG INNO ranked the Guilds by 'strength'. You might want to read how that turned out before asking them to do so again.
Johnny B. Goode
Well-Known Member
I like the idea of diminishing reward % for taking the same sector multiple times. It seems ridiculous to me to have a game mechanic that practically begs players to "farm" sectors. That was one of the main complaints about GvG and now it's reared its ugly head in GBG, too. One of the only guilds I've been in with other players since GBG started focused solely on farming. In fact, they made a determined effort not to rise to too high a league so that they could farm without having to worry about being shut out by an alliance of large guilds. Like I said, ridiculous.
And a way of reducing the impact of Siege Camps/Traps without eliminating them entirely would be to not allow them to be rebuilt by the same guild once destroyed. Or raise the cost for each time they are rebuilt in the same sector by the same guild. That would still allow guilds to use them, but cut down on the constant trading of the same sectors by the same guilds with zero attrition.
Either of these ideas would still allow much more personal rewards than GE or GvG, but change the focus from farming to an actual Guild vs Guild competition.
And a way of reducing the impact of Siege Camps/Traps without eliminating them entirely would be to not allow them to be rebuilt by the same guild once destroyed. Or raise the cost for each time they are rebuilt in the same sector by the same guild. That would still allow guilds to use them, but cut down on the constant trading of the same sectors by the same guilds with zero attrition.
Either of these ideas would still allow much more personal rewards than GE or GvG, but change the focus from farming to an actual Guild vs Guild competition.
Ebeondi Asi
Well-Known Member
-
Last edited:
icarusethan
Active Member
if people wanna leave because of gbg, they already did. no point to fix something the majority is fond of
Onyxblack
New Member
The bonuses are awesome...
Spending 4 hours pressing 3 buttons is not.
They need to get rid of buildings that reduce attrition.
icarusethan
Active Member
so nobody gonna play gbg anymore? great idea!
Onyxblack
New Member
Why would nobody play? I can get to 90 attrition a day with out losing troops.
The problem is lower guilds can't benefit from buildings that reduce attrition while top guilds can smash them down with no impact to their treasury.
... It takes me about 600 fights and 4 hours of pressing the same 3 buttons... but I get to 90 attrition a day... and thats the problem... it takes me 4 hours... of . .... the ... same ... freaking button.
If they got rid of the attrition reduce buildings .... or even all buildings at that, the gbg will progress slower yes... however smaller guilds will have a chance to team up on the large guilds.... as it stands right now ... we just own the map and smash all the small guilds and keep the grid locked. They have no chance.... you remove our buildings and actully cap our attrition and it will give them a better chance.
.... its gotten so bad that there are days that I just dont have anything to attack because the grid is locked up and can't even get to my easy 90 daily
Its one thing if a low guildie player can only get to 30 attrition with 50 battles, but i can do 90 with 600 battles. ... the ratio is just messed up which is causing us to roflstomp them
They remove the attrition reduction buildings, and the low player would still get 30 battles and I would only then get 90... Large guilds will still be powerfull... (3x as powerfull. ratio of 30:90) compared to what i currently experience (which is 12x as powerfull. ratio 50:600 )
It fix's the burn out of top players having to spend 4-5 hours pressing the same 3 buttons over and over and over and over and over and over and over again, and it fix's the HUGE difference between guilds ability to battle.
The center map should be the most volatile squares and should change hands the most, however in my experience its the squares right next to the other guilds base. If they remove buildings we would save the attrition that we have available to battle the center as their worth more and leave the sides alone - which will also prevent us from trapping other guilds in their own base for hours/days on end. Currently it takes us less attrition (due to surrounding buildings) to lock a lowbie guild into their base then it does for them to fight and get out of our gridlock. ... which keeps the center safe for us.
Last edited:
icarusethan
Active Member
then you gonna fight 90 battles a day without camp. take you 5 mins then you stop playing? i guess it works for you.
Onyxblack
New Member
other millage may verry - however for me...
it takes 4 hours to get 90 attrition
it takes 4 hours to do 600 battles
burnout is happening to top players because they are spending nothing but clicking the same 3 buttons.
reducing 600 battles to 90 would reduce time spent from 4 hours (240 mins) down to 40 mins.
Again... this is just me, I'm not in the top 500 on my server... their time and attrition may be higher then mine... but I know there is a lot of burn out happening at their levels.
I modified a lot of my above post - should take a read... there's a lot more discussion that I think you may like to read
Ebeondi Asi
Well-Known Member
-
Last edited:
Onyxblack
New Member
Burn out is a real thing.
We've even created a sister guild that others can transfer to in order to take a break in hopes to prevent it... and I am not the only one experiencing/seeing it... such as the #1 player on the walstrand server ... this is his city now: https://preview.redd.it/dp3aymihoxc...bp&s=a2c5df6b54e930ad37e949612f738fc7fe8e60b0
(note that this is purely an example - I dont even play on that server)....
This game can get addictive... gbg... is addictive... and there is a lot of burn out happening because of it.
Ebeondi Asi
Well-Known Member
-
Last edited:
icarusethan
Active Member
so you basically saying drug addicts should blame the state for legalizing weed instead of themselves. if so then we have to agree to disagree.
Also, i just happen to be in HCP's guild before he left the game. GBG is not the main reason he left. It's a bunch of reasons combined. For starter, he lives in Europe and playing on a US server... not going too deep on that.
Onyxblack
New Member
No... Im saying that pressing 3 buttons for 4 hours while getting 700 fp's, goods, troops, and diamonds is addictive.
In any case, the subject on this thread is not addiction, or burn out, but balance. Curious on your thoughts on my below statement??
icarusethan
Active Member
but the reason behind your suggestion is that you feel like in the current system you need to keep fighting so you not gonna miss all the rewards, and you feel burnt out, thus you wanna inno fix it by removing camps so nobody can farm endlessly no more. you can say its more about helping small guilds all you want but i don't buy it. plus, who cares about small guilds?
Onyxblack
New Member
The OP of this thread? A lot of people in here? Its not balanced... Okay... if we aren't going to limit power of top guilds then increase the power of lowers .... make buildings free? Thoughts? Top guilds don't even need to glance at their treasury currently - Would strengthen power of lower guilds and make it more challenging for top guilds, but the problem still remains that the grid will be locked, and the battle ratio's from top guilds to lower would still be off.... I was trying to fix that but... you think that was just for me
I guess the first thing we need to agree on is that GBG is not balanced and would be considered broken at its current state. Would you agree to that? Or are you in love with one guild dominating grid?
Last edited:
Ebeondi Asi
Well-Known Member
-
Last edited:
icarusethan
Active Member
not even 1 % of the players use this forum so just because people in this thread whining doesn't make GBG a bad feature. Top guilds supposed to dominate since they put way more effort to build their guilds before gbg even came out. just because weaklings can't get enough rewards doesn't make GBG a bad feature. GBG is a reward farming feature unless its a war map, and even then you can use allies to stuff your enemy guilds and get enough AF tiles if you do it right, just because weak guilds get stuffed doesn't make GBG a bad feature. You can pace yourself in GBG, set timer if you want to, but you don't have to jump into every AF tiles, just because people getting burnt out from GBG due to greed doesn't make GBG a bad feature. So, no, I don't agree GBG is broken.
ChandraguptaM
Member
Why would it not be playable? If your guild is that strong then you dont need the help of seige camps to smash other lower guilds. Also goods for FP/Diamonds is worth it anyways so spending a few goods for keeping up the drop rate is not a bad deal or good enough for folks to play GBG . Inno would probably just need to up the avg drop rate a bit.